<Here is where I'd like some clarification. In 1948, Kulp presented a paper
at the ASA convention on the antiquity of man. Afterwards he pointed out
that "only one assumption -- a uniform rate of radioactive disintegration --
was necessary to prove a very old earth." (p164) Is this still the general
consensus among those of the ASA? Does Numbers correctly explain Kelp's
position?>
It isn't too surprising that Kulp, an authority on this very method, stated
thiings quite so baldly. I'm not an authority on this (no surprise here),
but my own belief in the earth's great antiquity is based on several
independent lines of evidence, most not invoking radioactivity. Dan
Wonderly's book on non-radioactive methods for dating the earth is an
excellent overview (though I can't comment on its competence, which I
assume).
My own greatest scientific interest is astronomy/cosmology. I've long been
impressed with arguments about the age of the universe: regardless of how
they fluctuate (and they do), such ages for a few decades now have been in
the many billions of years. Even stellar ages alone do the job. Here I
would state, with confidence comparable to Kulp's, that the universe (if not
the earth) must be at least many hundreds of thousands of years old, or many
millions of years old, unless God is playing interesting games with
starlight. Cepheid variables can be distinguished in extra-galactic objects
such as the Magellanic Clouds; they are known in our own galaxy to be
standard candles of brightness; and their distances can therefore be
inferred. For these stars to be "young," either the method is so awfully
wrong that we might as well give up a lot of other sensible methods also, or
God made the light en route. (Or starlight bends so much more than almost
anyone thinks it does, which is a recent YEC suggestion.) I like the
simplest way out of this.
Ted Davis